role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 17, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Nov-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 November 2004 Mercredi 17 novembre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PIT BULLS

JAMAICAN CANADIAN ASSOCIATION

RACIAL PROFILING

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

SECURITY GUARDS

TIME ALLOCATION

HAY WEST

HYDRO ONE WORKERS

CLASS SIZE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 2004

RECALL ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVOCATION DES DÉPUTÉS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

POLICE OFFICERS

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

COMMUNITY SAFETY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

WATER QUALITY

ROAD SAFETY

LABOUR POLICY

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

POVERTY

GREENBELT

PETITIONS

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

OPTOMETRISTS

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

PIT BULLS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

AUTISM TREATMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PIT BULLS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): This morning, while watching the New VR news, I was saddened to learn that a Rottweiler attacked a postal

worker in Fenelon Falls on Friday. I would like to know how the current legislation to ban pit bulls would have prevented this tragic attack. Fortunately, a local man was able to stop the attack,

but not before the postal worker suffered serious injuries.

Sadly, the current pit bull legislation would not have prevented this attack at all. Instead of focusing on owners of dangerous dogs, the legislation bans one

breed, which isn't even uniquely identifiable. We saw last week that even the Attorney General, when asked to pick a pit bull from a collection of dogs, was unable to do so.

Instead of taking the time to provide a reasonable, practical solution to the issue of dangerous dogs, this government has introduced reactionary legislation to

punish responsible owners. I am concerned that the current pit bull ban is designed for newspaper headlines, not actually preventing dangerous dog attacks.

Today, the Super Dogs, a group of Staffordshire bull terriers, performed on the front lawn of Queen's Park. These dogs are capable of some amazing stunts.

However, the proposed legislation would ban them in Ontario.

Most dogs are friendly, loved members of their families. Unfortunately, there are some dogs in every breed that are capable of attacking people. It is

unreasonable for the government to ban all these dogs, as they are attempting to do with pit bulls. Instead, I strongly encourage Minister Bryant to take the time to develop new legislation that

will prevent dangerous dog attacks by focusing on irresponsible owners. Reasonable and effective legislation like that would be a good step for Ontario.

JAMAICAN CANADIAN ASSOCIATION

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the immense support the Ontario Trillium Foundation has bestowed

upon my riding of York West of late. More specifically, in late October of this year, the foundation provided a local community-based organization, the Jamaican Canadian Association, with some

$220,000 in additional funding over a three-year period.

This generous amount of money will play a significant role in strengthening the Jamaican Canadian Association's indispensable role in my riding. Established in

1962 and incorporated in 1971, the JCA is committed to identifying and responding to the needs of the Caribbean/black community in the York West area as well as the GTA.

At present, the JCA provides a variety of essential services: settlement services for new immigrants; youth and family counselling; domestic violence, incest and

child abuse programs; and a parenting program, just to name a few. In turn, through the maintenance of its five volunteer-based standing committees, the JCA is continually expanding and building

upon its community outreach initiatives, substantially improving the community's education and social needs.

I would like to once again thank the members of the Ontario Trillium Foundation for providing the JCA with the necessary funding, and congratulate them on all

the good work they have done for my constituents. This serves as yet another example of the provincial government making a concerted effort in serving the needs of local communities.

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is well known that this Liberal government is, should I say, liberal with the truth. Sadly, they can't even get

their own story straight.

In November, Community Safety Minister Monte Kwinter said, "On the always controversial subject of racial profiling, let me say that the ... McGuinty government

will take an absolute zero tolerance approach." A typical Liberal promise: all spin and no substance.

Just last week, for instance, Education Minister Gerard Kennedy condoned the actions of the Toronto District School Board in keeping race-based statistics. The

minister said, "We are not going to prohibit it at this point." So which is it? This really is the question that always comes to mind.

We don't have to look very far to see why we need clear guidelines around racial profiling of any kind. On March 18, 2003, then-school trustee and now-Liberal

MPP for Don Valley West, Ms Kathleen Wynne, told the Toronto Star, "I assume when I'm going into an (expulsion) hearing it's only going to be a young male of colour. And if it isn't, I'm

surprised."

This government came out firmly against police forces tracking race-based statistics. There is now clearly a double standard, as the Toronto District School

Board will be allowed to do just that.

This is a highly charged issue that deserves a debate in this House today. I call on the Premier to have the courage, for once, to take a stand and stick to it.

This issue is simply far too important to have positions that change at every event and with every poll result.

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): Today, November 17, is World COPD Day. COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is a disease that

makes it difficult to move air into and out of your lungs. It is a disease that causes the airways of the lungs to be inflamed and become obstructed or blocked. For people who suffer from COPD,

drawing a breath can be a difficult, frightening struggle. It includes two major breathing diseases: chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

COPD is a disease that generally affects people over 60. It affects more women than men, and 15% to 20% of smokers will develop COPD. More than 750,000 Canadians

suffer from the disease. Hundreds of thousands more have COPD but have not been diagnosed. That's part of why it's important to continue to raise awareness about this disease, and that's part of

why World COPD Day is so important.

As we mark World COPD Day, I'd like to draw your attention to Breathworks, an innovative initiative of the Lung Association that promises to improve life for

many of those 750,000 Canadians. Breathworks is a disease management program that focuses on education, information-sharing and building a strong support system around those who suffer from the

disease. More information is available on the Lung Association's Web site or via their phone hotline: 1-866-717-COPD.

We believe in the work the Lung Association does and, as a government, we are committed to reducing the number of people who suffer from this disease. The

government will help to combat COPD through our comprehensive anti-smoking strategy. We have already increased the cost of cigarettes. We'll make all public spaces and workplaces in Ontario 100%

smoke-free in three years. And we will create a peer-to-peer anti-smoking campaign targeted at youth and created by youth to deter kids from lighting up.

In marking World COPD Day, I invite all members of the House to join me in saluting the important work of the Lung Association to combat COPD and in using their

voices to raise awareness about this disease.

SECURITY GUARDS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today in response to an

article by Richard Brennan of the Toronto Star entitled "Security Guards to

Get Stricter Rules." Apparently, almost six months after the release of the recommendations of the coroner's jury into the death of Patrick Shand, Minister Kwinter is supposed to introduce

legislation sometime soon to amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

Well, legislation already exists in the form of Bill 88, my private member's bill that would bring numerous much-needed and long-overdue amendments to the

private security industry. We consulted with stakeholders in drafting Bill 88. The vast majority of the Shand inquest recommendations are reflected in my legislation, as well as many other

changes.

Bill 88 would bring about numerous significant changes to the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, such as: mandatory multi-level training and

standards for the use of force, firearms and making arrests; different classes and portability of licences; restrictions on the equipment licensees are authorized to use or are prohibited from

using; prohibitions for licensees on uniforms, and markings and colours of security vehicles, that resemble those of police officers; and prohibitions on licensees on the use of badges or other

insignia that resemble those of police officers.

Bill 88 passed second reading in a vote of 48 to 0 and was referred to the standing committee on justice policy. In fact, our Minister of Community Safety voted

on it himself and supported it.

The work has already been done. There's no need to waste any more ministry staff time or resources. So I urge Minister Kwinter to put Bill 88 on the justice

policy committee agenda now. I would appreciate him doing that, because it is going to save taxpayers money and pass a good bill.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The Liberals here at Queen's Park are certainly showing their true colours. Not only do they adopt the Tory

privatization agenda when it comes to any number of parts of our public sector and public service -- hospitals, corrections and, of course, hydroelectricity generation and distribution -- but now

the Liberals have adopted Tory tactics as well.

The Liberal House leader serves notices of time allocation motions designed to eliminate debate on Bill 100, one of the most contentious pieces of legislation

introduced by this government since their election in October of last year. No further second reading debate, denying members of this assembly, both government and opposition members, the right to

put their contribution on to the record and denying the people of Ontario the right to participate in public hearings -- public hearings, why, but one hour of clause-by-clause debate. And then the

Liberals demonstrate their disregard and disdain for parliamentary procedure by restricting third reading debate to but two hours, maybe two hours and 15 minutes, and then forcing the bill to a

vote.

Well, it looks like Dalton McGuinty has put on the jackboots, laced them up tight, and he is now stomping over traditional parliamentary process. This is far too

important a piece of legislation for this government to be allowed to ram through without consultation and without real debate. They're going to do it regardless.

HAY WEST

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): In 2002, western Canada experienced a major drought and a shortage of hay that threatened the livelihoods

of thousands of farmers. It's the kind of thing most of us see on TV and shake our heads and change the channel.

But Wyatt and Willard McWilliams, two prominent members of the farming community in Navan, Ontario, near Ottawa, decided to do something about it. With

co-operation from the community, government officials, CN and CP Rail, the McWilliams brothers launched the Hay West initiative.

Through Hay West, farmers from Ontario and the rest of eastern Canada shipped 30,000 tonnes of hay to western Canada. Over 1,400 farmers from Saskatchewan and

Alberta received the hay and experienced a renewal of hope for their farming businesses.

Wouldn't it be great if we saw the same kind of national co-operation in support of our beef? "Buy Canadian beef." That's what we should be saying.

Last night in Ottawa, MP Don Boudria hosted the official launch of Hay West: A Story of Canadians Helping Canadians. Written by local author Bob Plamondon, this

book tells the story of how people across eastern Canada, from farmers to politicians to business people, came together to help their brothers and sisters in the west.

As a former municipal politician who helped to get Hay West off the ground, I congratulate all members of Hay West on their achievements. I hope that Mr

Plamondon's book will be a record of just how compassionate, caring and even heroic Canadians can be when they seize the opportunity to help fellow countrymen in need.

HYDRO ONE WORKERS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the dedication and hard work shown by the workers

of Hydro One during the recent series of hurricanes in Florida.

As we've all seen in the news, Hurricane Frances hit the sunshine state with devastating effects. Two hundred seventy workers, in three convoys of Hydro One

trucks, went to the hardest-hit part of Florida: Stuart and Port St Lucie. Between September 10 and 21 they worked 16-hour days, were the last to go home and were recognized by Florida Power and

Light to be among the very best crews they've ever seen. But just when the crews returned home, another hurricane hit. Florida Power and Light called with another request for assistance, and 230

staff were sent to the same devastated areas between September 25 and October 6.

I would like to tell the Legislature about an example of amazing citizenship that was demonstrated by some of these workers. The children's football team in Port

St Lucie had been admiring the work of the crews, and asked if they could change their team name to include Hydro One. The workers agreed and took up a collection to help this team, which didn't

even have its own jerseys. The workers raised over $1,000, which the team used to buy new jerseys that had "Hydro One" printed on the back.

This is an example not only of leadership and hard work, but also of good citizenship in co-operation with our neighbours when they were in a time of severe

distress. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to say thank you to the Hydro One crews and offer my congratulations on a job well done.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): When we formed the government a little more than a year ago, one of the central planks in our platform was reducing

class sizes for our youngest students. Since then, we have been making huge strides to meet that end, and I'm proud of our achievements so far.

More than 7,500 elementary teachers are beginning the year with specialized training in reading and math instruction as part of the government's effort to boost

student literacy and numeracy in the all-important early grades. School boards are hiring more than 11,000 new teachers as a first step in reducing class size in the early grades.

What's more, more than 1,300 schools have smaller classes in the primary grades throughout the province, and that is making a real difference. I know the York

Region District School Board chairperson, Bill Crothers, thinks so. He was recently quoted in one of our local papers as saying, "Our students are better served today." That's right; straight from

the horse's mouth. Students who attend schools in York Region District School Board are better served, and if we can accomplish that much in education in one short year, just think of the

improvements that will be made in the next three.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated November 17,

2004, for the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 2004

Mrs Jeffrey moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr10,

An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

RECALL ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVOCATION DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 148,

An Act respecting the recall of members of the Legislative Assembly / Projet de loi 148, Loi concernant la révocation des députés

de l'Assemblée législative.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All opposed, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Mr Flaherty?

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): This bill is comprehensive, detailed recall legislation. I'd like to thank my former legislative intern Michael

Acedo for his extensive work on the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a process by which members of the Legislative Assembly may be recalled and a by-election held to fill the vacant seat.

The first step in the process is the issuing of a recall petition. If the petition is signed by more than 25% of the total number of individuals who are entitled to sign it, and the petition

otherwise meets the requirements for a successful recall petition, the Chief Election Officer shall hold a referendum to decide whether the member should be recalled.

Sections 11 to 22 describe the referendum process, in particular with respect to financing and advertising of referendum campaigns. If more than 50% of those

entitled to vote on the referendum answer yes to the referendum question, then the member is recalled and his or her seat in the assembly becomes vacant. A by-election is then held to fill the

vacancy. The recalled member is free to be a candidate in the by-election.

No doubt this bill will be supported by the Liberal members opposite, given their promise of accountability to the electorate.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today we learned that trustees at the Toronto District

School Board, apparently with the quiet blessing of your Minister of Education, cooked up a way to get around the law and increased their incomes by approximately 200%, this at a time when you are

calling on teachers, nurses and other public sector workers to temper their wage demands, except for 2%, the Premier is suggesting. You've talked a good game about transparency, openness and

accountability. Do you endorse this backroom deal and your minister's involvement in it?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. First of all, to be

clear, this is not a policy that was in any way approved or endorsed, either before or after, by any representative of this government. Secondly, so that I am perfectly clear on this, I do not

approve of this policy. I believe it is unacceptable. I'm asking that the board reconsider this policy. I've also asked that the minister review our options. I'm also proud to say that we're

expanding the scope of the Provincial Auditor's mandate so that he can look at, among other of our transfer partners, our school boards.

Mr Runciman: I guess the Premier is indicating quite clearly and unequivocally that the Minister of Education did not, in any way, shape or

form, endorse that deal. Certainly that's good news.

We are concerned. According to news reports, the trustees in Toronto are receiving cheques every two weeks, on top of their regular pay, for so-called expenses

-- no receipts required, no proof needed and no explanation wanted. Some trustees have come forward. Patrick Rutledge is one who has admitted that these changes -- he has indicated publicly that

these changes were allowed by the Minister of Education. Perhaps he's talking about the Ministry of Education. I'm not sure where the confusion stems from here. Premier, your minister, according to

public comments, had some role to play, or his ministry had some role to play in this. That's no way to run a province. Will you tell us today that you will put a stop to this today and make sure

that this is rolled back and that the trustees pay back the taxpayers of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I can sympathize with the Leader of the Opposition. I've been there before -- when you ask the first question and you get the

answer you weren't expecting to get and then you've got two supplementaries you've got to put. I've been there before. I can sympathize with that.

Let me say, first of all, that we have a tremendous amount of respect for the work that trustees do throughout this province on behalf of our children in

advancing the cause of public education.

I'm not sure I can be any more clear to my colleague. We do not endorse this policy. We do not approve of it. I'm asking that the board reconsider this policy.

I have also asked the Minister of Education to take a very close look at our options in these circumstances.

Mr Runciman: I assume from that response that the initial approach is a request; that if that fails, there will be additional action

forthcoming. We certainly like to hear the Premier speak to his willingness to take it that further step if the Toronto board declines to accept his urgings. That, we believe, is critical. If you

take a look at what might happen here across the province, we are talking about millions and millions of dollars in terms of implications if every board determines that this is the kind of approach

they want to take -- backroom ways around the law -- to supplement their incomes.

We would like the Premier to stand up here today in the House and indicate to us and to the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario that if, indeed, the Toronto

board does not follow his advice, does not agree to his request, he is prepared to take the necessary action to put a stop to this.

Hon Mr McGuinty: To repeat, my colleague's concern is well-founded, and I share that concern. We have a difference, though, in terms of the

approach that we bring to these kinds of things. We are going to work with our trustees throughout the province to ensure that we develop a good working relationship, which is not in my interest

and, frankly, not in their interests; it's in the interest of our kids. We will continue to bring that kind of approach.

I am now asking that the trustees of the Toronto District School Board reconsider this policy. It is not one that is approved by this government. I have also

asked that the Minister of Education explore our options. But I have every expectation that, now that this has been brought to the light of day, trustees will reconsider the steps they've

taken.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Premier as well. On October 21 of this year, you announced during a speech to

the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police that your government will add 1,000 new police officers. You also said that your government will contribute $30 million to this endeavour over the course

of the mandate. I shouldn't have to tell you that the $30 million is actually a pittance given that it costs about $100,000 a year to put a new police officer on the street. Over the course of the

mandate, if you started to phase it in right now, you would be covering about 15% of the cost.

Municipalities will have to pick up most of the tab for a promise that you made during the election. I ask you: Do you expect municipalities to pay for their

share of hiring the new police officers with the money they collect from tax increases or from photo radar?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure the member is aware of this. This is, in many ways, an

extension of the program brought forward by the previous government. Just so the member has his facts straight, we're talking about funding of $30 million a year, every year. It's my understanding

-- and I can refer the supplementary to the minister -- that covers half the cost. Now the ball is in the municipalities' courts. It's up to them now to decide to what extent they wish to avail

themselves of this program.

Mr Dunlop: I think you should do the math on half the cost, because it's costing a lot more than $60 million to add 1,000 new police officers

on the streets of our province.

Since your government was elected, they have increased fees for municipal police services to train recruits at the Ontario Police College and have added the

cost to municipal police services of gun verification, which was previously covered by our government and by the province. What makes matters worse is that we now know that you're just buying time

with your announcement on the 1,000 new police officers.

Affected stakeholders received a letter from the Ministry of Community Safety. I believe the letter is code for, "Let's drag this one out as long as we

possibly can before we have to put any money into it."

Premier, we believe it has been all talk but no action, so far, on keeping the promise on the 1,000 new police officers. Can you tell us when you're going to

allocate money and if you'll let the police services decide how to use that money?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Rather than refer it to the minister, I'm going to hang on to this one so municipalities will better understand where we're

coming from.

We're going to make the money available this coming year. It is part of a new and much better relationship we are developing with municipalities. In fact, just

recently I received a letter from Roger Anderson, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, who says in passing, "There is a refreshing new approach to intergovernmental affairs

underway in Ontario, and this association welcomes it and will work diligently to enhance it. Our citizens deserve nothing less."

I understand the scepticism brought to this matter by my colleague opposite; he has a partisan responsibility to share that scepticism here in this place. But

the reality is that we are working well with our partners, the municipalities across the province.

Mr Dunlop: I'd like to get some comments from the Premier on the response he got back from mayors on the 1,000 new police officers. You made a

promise to put 1,000 more cops on the street. You should keep this promise before you do anything else.

It has also been brought to our attention that your government is creating a new so-called Ontario centre for safer communities. Apparently, this new centre

will reflect what you would consider to be a new approach to crime prevention, crime reduction and promotion of safer communities. To help cover the operating costs of this project, I understand

that several ministries in your government will transfer funds to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We know that the ministries had until October 15 to indicate whether

they would participate. Premier, how much will this new centre cost, and where will it be located?

Hon Mr McGuinty: To the minister.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): My parliamentary assistant is working on that project. We have

announced it, we've invited several ministries that will be impacted by this to participate, and we will be announcing, at the appropriate time, what the program is going to do and where it's going

to be located.

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. This fall, we've been asking a lot of questions about your promise

gap; that is, the difference between what you promised before and during the election and what you deliver now.

During the election, you promised to keep hydroelectricity public in Ontario. Last night, you introduced a time allocation motion that will choke off debate on

Bill 100, your private hydro bill. We know what's at stake here. Private electricity drives up the hydro bill for industry, for business, for consumers. We believe there should be a meaningful

public debate about this before it happens, but you want to shut up MPPs and shut down debate. What are you trying to hide, Premier, by shutting down debate on the future of Ontario's

hydroelectricity system?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Energy.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): This bill has had eight hours of second reading debate. I remind the Leader

of the Opposition that this bill was sent to committee after first reading. It was travelled to eight communities. We received 100 delegations and 865 written presentations. The bill has had a

considerable amount of debate, and we believe it's appropriate to move the bill back into committee for clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr Hampton: I think the people of Ontario would know that besides being a $10-billion industry, this has a lot to do with whether people can

afford to keep the lights on, whether they can afford to pay the hydro bill.

Here's one thing I know you're trying to hide. This is the report of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, which represents the largest

industries in the province: Ford Motor Company, Stelco, Dofasco, Inco, Bowater Pulp and Paper. This report says that the McGuinty hydro scheme will drive up the price of electricity by at least 30%

for industry -- possibly by 53% for industry -- and will result in the loss of 140,000 manufacturing jobs in this province. That is what you are trying to hide.

Minister, before you try to ram through your bill to turn Ontario's hydroelectricity system into a private system, don't you think the people who may stand to

lose their jobs deserve to hear a full, open, public debate?

Hon Mr Duncan: The same member opposite last year said prices would go up this year by 30%; they've gone down by 19% in the wholesale

market.

Let me respond directly. First of all, many of the corporations that are in that have expressed support publicly for Bill 100. Bill 100 will not lead to higher

prices for electricity. Bill 100 provides forward planning. It will allow us to bring on new supply and decrease demand. The only way to lower price is to increase supply and decrease demand, and

we are doing both those things.

Let me tell the member opposite -- you talk about time allocation. Do you remember the Social Contract Act? You time-allocated that. There were no public

hearings, no debate at third reading. You time-allocated that. You had no public hearings when you raised the gas tax by 3.4%. The Bob Rae government used time allocation on 25 occasions, and they

created it. This government has used it -- this will be the second occasion, after public hearings; provides for third reading, and the bill --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I don't think the minister has been reading the association's report. This is what they say on page 15: "We urge the provincial

government to fully review the cost impacts of its electricity policy." They're very blunt.

I think I know what else you are trying to hide. Eight months ago, the Premier's good friend John Manley said Pickering unit 1 would only cost $825 million to

refurbish. Three months later, you say it costs $900 million. Five months after that, it's now $1 billion.

You want to shut down debate because you don't want the people of Ontario to have a full and frank debate about what nuclear power means in terms of costs,

what it means in terms of refurbishing other units at Pickering.

Minister, before you ram this bill through, before you try to go further down the road of nuclear fiascos that cost the Conservatives billions that they

weren't ready for, that have already cost you lots of money that you weren't ready for, before that drives up the hydro bill for industry, for business and for consumers, don't you think the people

of Ontario who have to pay the bill deserve a full, frank and open debate?

Hon Mr Duncan: We have taken the concerns of AMPCO to heart. In fact, we reviewed the policy on pricing. This bill creates a mechanism to

create new supply, supply that you failed to deliver when you were government. It provides a mechanism for conservation. Your government cancelled all conservation programs in Ontario.

I'll predict today that the 43% increase in hydro rates that we witnessed under his government's policy won't be repeated. Why? Because we are moving to undo

the bad things you did and the Conservatives did before us in an open and transparent way.

This bill is the right direction for energy. This bill will provide new supply. This bill will help decrease demand and eventually lead back to competitive

prices throughout Ontario, so that our economy can thrive again.

The Speaker: This is a new question.

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Premier, here is something else you are trying to hide. After telling people during the election

that you wanted Ontario's electricity system to be public, you are now giving away to private, profit-driven companies the remaining river sites in Ontario that provide the potential for the

cleanest and the most affordable electricity.

You've thumbed your nose at public power, you've thumbed your nose at First Nations, and you've rolled out the carpet for private companies that would simply

turn this into a money-making machine.

When the Conservatives sold off the Mississagi River plants to Brascan, Brascan then sold that hydroelectricity for 10 times what it cost to produce and pulled

in $17.6 million in just a few months.

New Democrats want to have a debate about keeping that source of electricity public. Why do you want to shut down debate, shut out the public and give it to

your private sector friends?

Hon Mr McGuinty: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): Again the leader of the third party has of course got it all wrong, like the rest of his

colleagues. If he had listened to the announcement, he would realize that communities, co-operatives, First Nations, and yes, private companies, if they wish -- there are hundreds of very small

private companies looking at these opportunities across the province -- can put forward proposals.

What we've also said, if the leader of the third party would take a look at the announcement I made last week, is that on the points system we've designed, it

will be nearly impossible for us to consider a proposal that does not have a First Nation component to it. That's what we're doing. For the very first time, the Ontario government is moving forward

with some resource development in northern Ontario and saying, "We're not going to leave our First Nations behind."

Mr Hampton: When the Minister of Natural Resources tried that speech on the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, they sent him out of Thunder Bay with his

tail between his legs.

I suspect the other reason the government wants to shut down this debate is because it is acknowledged that we need more sources of green power, better energy

efficiency and more conservation.

This is what Keith Stewart and Jamie Swift, the authors of this recent book, say about the government's initiative: "None of this will come to pass if Ontario

instead keeps investing in the money pit nuclear plants. Or if we stake our future on multinational energy companies."

The Society of Professional Engineers, who represent the skilled engineers at our hydro plants who keep our lights on, say, "Bill 100 will significantly

undermine Ontario's publicly owned and operated power system and create a new one based on a model that has failed in many other jurisdictions."

People don't want this to happen, Premier. Why do you want to shut down debate? Why do you want to deny the people of Ontario a public debate about the future

of our hydroelectricity system? Why is that your record in government?

Hon Mr Ramsay: We're back to the bill now, and I'll refer the question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Mr Duncan: This bill has had public hearings right across the province of Ontario. I attended a number of those hearings myself. We had

hearings here in Toronto. We had over 100 delegations. We had over 800 written submissions. They've all been responded to.

This bill preserves and protects the hydro and nuclear assets in public hands. We deal with the question of heritage assets. The member conveniently ignores

that. One thing we cannot afford is to go back to the old monopoly, the monopoly that failed to produce power in adequate supply, the monopoly that ran up a $38-billion deficit. That member wants

the status quo. That member wants more of the same. This party and this government choose change, in the best interests of electricity consumers in this province.

Mr Hampton: Who wants the status quo? Your electricity policy is the same electricity policy that failed under the Conservatives, the same

electricity policy that drove prices through the roof and resulted in a blackout. You're the man of status quo.

I want to quote someone. This is someone who said that time allocation is a "guillotine bill, this attempt to stifle debate, to limit the ability of members to

participate in the discussion." This person said, "That's why this institution is in such disrepute, because we don't want to talk about the important things." Who said that? That was Dwight

Duncan, two short years ago.

Here's the reality. Hydroelectricity is an absolutely essential service. Everybody needs it. Everybody needs it every day. It's not something that should be

put in private hands, in the hands of international corporations, but that's exactly what the McGuinty government is going to do, and now they want to shut down debate to keep that hidden from the

people of Ontario. Premier, are you going to shut down debate --

The Speaker: Thank you. The Minister of Energy?

Hon Mr Duncan: The largest privatization of electricity in the history of the province of Ontario happened under the NDP government, of which

you were a key member. Do you remember the NUGs agreements? The finance minister certainly remembers the NUGs agreements because we've had to deal with them this year to get rid of the bad deals

that you set up way back in 1990 to 1993.

The part of the statement the member forgot to mention with respect to time allocation is that today marks the second time this government has used time

allocation. His government used it more than 25 times, on much more controversial bills. This government had this bill for public hearings across the province. His government, when it used time

allocation, didn't provide for that. This time allocation motion provides for third reading debate. When his government used time allocation, they didn't allow third reading debate. This government

has used time allocation less than any government. We also said, and I've also said in the past, it's a legitimate tool to be used on occasion --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the members to direct your questions to the Speaker, and also your responses to the Speaker. And when I

stand up, I would ask the members to sit down. You have extended beyond the time that you should answer or respond to the question.

There will be a new question. The Leader of the Opposition?

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community Safety. I want to talk about a couple of things

that should have been done over the past year or so that the Liberal government has been in office.

They found time to close down the highly successful strict discipline camp, Camp Turnaround, for young offenders. They found time to close down a highly

effective crime control commission. They found time to do that, yet they haven't found time, despite introducing legislation in June, to deal with the reporting of gunshot wounds and requiring

hospitals to report gunshot wound victims. They haven't done one thing about that, other than table it, get the headlines for the day or the week, and not call that legislation.

Here we are, well into the fall. Minister, are you sincere about this? If you are, why isn't this legislation being called?

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: There's a Toronto member interjecting.

Toronto police say the hospitals are virtual safe havens for injured gunmen on the lam. Minister, when are you going to do something about this, rather than

simply talk about it?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for his question. I find it interesting that

someone who occupied the position of Solicitor General would ask that question. When he was the Solicitor General, we had ample opportunity to address this issue. During the time that he was there,

he totally ignored it. He totally, totally ignored it.

What has happened is that we have gone to the trouble, and to the industry -- I'm talking about "the industry" as the hospitals. We talked to doctors. We

talked to the Ontario Medical Association. We've got their co-operation. We made the announcement because this is the right thing to do. The legislation will be coming forward. As you know, we have

a very busy --

Mr Runciman: Call it.

Hon Mr Kwinter: Well, we will be calling it, and we will be doing it in the course of time.

Just so you understand, we have issues that we are addressing and we've done -- let me give you an example. Yesterday we announced option 4. On October 1,

1998, you condemned it. That was six years ago. You were there for five years and you did nothing --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr Runciman: That's just a great deal more bull roar from the government benches.

Another issue that the minister and his Liberal colleagues have failed to deal with -- and an issue I raised last spring -- is the need for an inquest into the

murder of 15-year-old René Charlebois in Mississauga. You were noncommittal. You danced around that, as you frequently do on these controversial issues. This is serious. We had a sexual

predator in the Mississauga community who was responsible for the deaths of three young men. You are now required to have an inquest into the death of Mr Moore, who died in custody.

Minister, will you ensure that the inquest into Moore's death is expanded to look into the circumstances surrounding Moore's presence in the community, why the

public wasn't notified of his presence and why he was able to live near a school and provide babysitting services? Those are important, critical issues that have to be addressed. You have a

responsibility to do it. Will you make sure it happens?

Hon Mr Kwinter: This member constantly confounds me. He was the Solicitor General of Ontario. He knows that the Solicitor General does not

call inquests. I do not have the authority to call an inquest; the calling of inquests is the responsibility of the coroner. It is not allowed for me to interfere with that process, and you must

know that.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. Students and teachers are very worried about the crumbling state of our

schools, and quite frankly I think it's a province-wide disgrace.

Last night, viewers of CITY TV news -- I happened to be one of them -- saw the latest chilling example: A 25-pound slab of concrete fell from the wall on to

the arm of a janitor and continued its fall on to a student's chair, causing a crack in the middle of it. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt, but Ontarians don't want to wait until someone

is.

During the election campaign you promised to fix our crumbling schools. You promised to implement the Rozanski recommendation of an annual amortization fund.

Last May, you promised to do it again, but we're still waiting for action. Where is the fund that you promised?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me say at the outset that I'm very sorry to learn of this incident,

and I offer our very best wishes to all those who were or might have been affected by this.

I can tell you that we are concerned about the state of our public infrastructure but particularly concerned about the quality of the schools in which our

children do their learning. Earlier, the Minister of Education made an announcement that the government will provide funding to support $2.1 billion of renewal work in Ontario schools through a new

$200-million amortization fund. We're proud of that announcement, and there is obviously much work to be done in making sure that becomes a reality for many school boards and schools.

Mr Marchese: In my view, kids can't wait, students can't wait and schools can't wait. Viewers who watch CFTO and CITY get it. They saw the

damage at Vaughan Road collegiate, and they heard the caretaker who was injured state the obvious: "If you don't upkeep the buildings ... they'll fall apart." It's very simple.

Rozanski first proposed a repair fund in 2002. It's 2004 now, and this fund is still not here. He proposed a $200-million annual fund. In case some of you

don't get it, that means every year -- not when Liberals decide to be generous, but every year -- otherwise, buildings fall apart.

A 25-pound slab of concrete fell from the wall and injured a caretaker. It could have been worse. Can you see now what happens when you promise change and

don't deliver?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Just by way of a very brief list of some of the changes we've made in education already, we've reduced class sizes in the

early grades this year for about 1,300 schools, we've hired 1,100 new teachers, we've trained 8,000 JK to grade 3 lead teachers in literacy and math, we've trained 7,500 classroom JK to grade 3

teachers this past summer on strategies for teaching literacy and math, we've boosted funding for public education by $854 million this year, we've ensured public money is invested in public

education by eliminating the private school tax credit -- the list goes on and on.

If my friend is not aware of the change, then if he asks us more questions over the ensuing days and weeks and months and years, we'll be more than pleased to

provide him with that information.

Also, by way of change, on May 25 of this year we announced funding to support $2.1 billion in renewal work in Ontario schools. It has taken years of neglect,

and we are finally putting forward a fund in a practical, pragmatic way that will make a real difference.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today, you and the Minister of Natural Resources

announced funding to help municipalities and conservation authorities prepare source protection plans. After the tragic events that took place in Walkerton, we know all too well how important it is

to protect our water. It is, after all, our most precious resource. Water sources are our lifeline.

Commissioner O'Connor, in his report of the Walkerton inquiry, made nearly 100 recommendations on how we can better protect our water. Can you please remind

this Legislature and the people of Ontario which O'Connor recommendations this announcement fulfills and can you please update us on the government's progress on implementing all of Commissioner

O'Connor's recommendations?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm happy to report on the progress that our government has made on what is a very key

priority, and that is protecting our drinking water from its source to tap. Today, the Ministry of the Environment will participate in the initiative to the tune of $12.5 million.

I would refer to the Walkerton inquiry recommendation number one, that we should implement a source protection plan and that it should apply to all watersheds

in the province. I'm very happy that our government is committed to ensuring we have protection of our source water. We have hired more water inspectors, we have appointed the advisory council on

drinking water quality and testing standards, and we will continue to work toward implementing all 121 of O'Connor's recommendations. The announcement today will enable us to move forward on an

additional 37. To date we have accomplished 51, and we will be able to add to that 37 with today's announcement.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Mrs Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I'm extremely pleased that our government is living up to its commitment

to protect our drinking water. You have explained that protecting our water is vital to our very survival. I understand that the funding provided today will help municipalities and conservation

authorities safeguard one of our most precious resources: our water. What kind of work can we expect from conservation authorities on this front, Minister?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): A healthier Ontario is a key commitment of our government, and, of course, protecting our

ground and surface water sources is the foundation of that commitment.

To the member, the more than $12.5 million the minister and I made available today will allow conservation authorities and our municipalities to hire expert

staff to do the technical studies required to quantify and qualify our water sources. These conservation authorities and municipalities will also use the money to conduct technical studies needed

to move ahead with our source water protection plan. The information from the studies will give us a better understanding of how much ground and surface water we have available to support our

communities and will also further our understanding of the interaction between ground and surface water and how quickly our groundwater gets replenished after use.

The Speaker: I would point out and let you know that the question that was put to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The question was put to the Minister of the Environment, and then the minister has to refer the question for the

supplementary. I wasn't quite sure I heard a referral to the Minister of Natural Resources. In the future --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I didn't hear, and I would like to note --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. In the future, I would like you to follow that direction.

There'll be a new question now.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, your Minister of Community Safety issued a directive

to police forces across Ontario saying they are to stop all traffic safety courses, or the so-called "option 4." Many communities, including the city of Barrie in my riding, offer this option to

drivers for minor offences to help steer cases away from the already overburdened court system.

We now have learned that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police disagrees with this directive and feels that your government is taking a valuable traffic

safety tool away from police forces in this province.

The association has also said, "The government was not interested in working together to address the legitimate needs of those communities that chose to

implement option 4," and that yesterday's announcement was made with no prior notice to the association or to impacted police services, such as the city of Barrie.

Premier, for the communities that offer this option, monies raised are invested in enhancing police resources. What plans do you have to make up for the

funding, given your hasty, knee-jerk directive?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Minister of Community Safety and Corrections.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. I should just correct some of

the information that he has just given. I have met extensively with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. I met with police chiefs who are using option 4 and I've met with those who aren't.

The truth is, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police have not taken a position on this, even though we had asked them to, because they were sorely divided. They wouldn't take that step.

I just want to refer back to October 1, 1998, when this issue first came to light. The then Solicitor General and the then Minister of Transportation said that

they were very, very upset with this thing. In fact, the Solicitor General said, "My concern is that they are doing this because of budgetary pressures. I don't think the justice system should be

utilized for that purpose."

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): Who said that?

Hon Mr Kwinter: That was the member for Leeds-Grenville.

I want to tell you that the money that is being --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Mr Tascona: To the Premier: Your minister is wrong, because he knows what the city of Barrie police chief thinks about this issue. But that's

not the issue. Clearly, you have no regard for the communities that used option 4 as a traffic safety tool, like the city of Barrie. According to the public accounts tabled by your government in

March, you wrote off almost $200 million in uncollected bills and fines from the Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General alone -- $200 million. Your directive ending option 4 will force more

people into our overburdened court system and will cost municipalities hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost option 4 fees.

Guarantee us today that those who take these minor traffic offences to court will have their day in court and that justice will be served. Guarantee us today

that these cases as a result of your cancellation of option 4 will not be written off as you've done to the tune of $200 million just a few short months ago.

Hon Mr Kwinter: Again I'd like to correct the member's statement. The money that comes from option 4 does not go to the municipalities, so

they're not losing it; it goes to the police service, which is one of the reasons why we are opposed to it. But I should tell you that without option 4, the money that has been going to the police

service, and more, will be going to the municipality. All fines that are levied go to the particular municipality.

As far as not collecting that money, you should turn to the member Mr Flaherty, who was the Treasurer at the time. He was the person who didn't collect it. I

should tell you that the idea of having the police, who are the beneficiaries of this money, also collect it is something that we are not prepared to condone.

LABOUR POLICY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Premier. Premier, when you said that you planned to transform government, you didn't tell

anybody that you were going to use Wal-Mart as your model.

On November 30, the Centre for Leadership, Cabinet Office, is paying senior civil servants to go on a Wal-Mart study tour to meet with Wal-Mart managers and

discuss Wal-Mart's people practices. Just so we're clear, Wal-Mart's people practices include union busting, unfair labour practices and shipping off jobs to sweatshop operators. Are these the sort

of people practices that you want to incorporate into your government?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can't tell you how much I have been waiting for this opportunity,

because I have in my hands a letter. It was sent to Howard Hampton by the president of OPSSU, the Ontario Public Service Staff Union, and it reads in part as follows:

"[I]t has saddened me to see that party status has not yet returned all our OPSEU NDP caucus bargaining unit brothers and sisters back to their jobs.

"Rather, the caucus has made every effort to exclude senior bargaining unit members, especially union activists, from the new human resources (HR) plan....

"The current plan that has 13 managers/excluded and only nine members in the bargaining unit is a travesty."

I look forward to hearing more from the champions of the working people.

Mr Kormos: You're spending a huge amount of public money sending senior public servants to a Wal-Mart-driven exercise, a company that has

excelled at busting unions, hiring scabs and exporting jobs.

The United Food and Commercial Workers have been working with Wal-Mart's workers in an effort to get them a union. You've demonstrated with your labour

legislation that you're no friend of non-union workers in this province, or of unionized workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'm going to ask the Minister of Energy to just tone it down a bit. I cannot hear the member from Niagara

Centre.

Mr Kormos: You've demonstrated yourself to be no friend of either union or non-union workers in this province, and now you're inviting

Wal-Mart's managers in to show your public sector leaders how to bust unions.

Mike Fraser, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, points out that Wal-Mart workers on an average make less in a week than your staff will spend

on their day at the Wal-Mart academy of higher learning. He wants you to pull the plug on that. Will you?

Hon Mr McGuinty: As you might suspect, there's more. This, from Robert Field, who is, by the way, president of OPSSU:

"The Ontario NDP should be a model progressive employer, sensitive to labour principles and workers' rights. However, it appears to be far from that....

"Until the caucus proposes an appropriate HR plan to the OPSEU representatives, you will be asking me in vain for donations to the party. Further, I am

recommending to my membership and to the 100,000 members of OPSEU that PAC donations, and perhaps memberships, ought to be withdrawn unless fundamental change is made now in the way the NDP caucus

is organized and run."

It is signed:

"In waning solidarity,

"Robert Field,

"President, OPSSU."

The Speaker: New question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: It seems to me that the government House leader and the Minister of Infrastructure wouldn't like to hear your question, so maybe

the member for Chatham-Kent Essex --

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, a point of order.

Mr Kormos: Leah Casselman would be very concerned that the Premier has replaced her with one Robert Field as president.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. Member from Chatham-Kent-Essex.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In this year's budget, our government announced

the allocation of $600 million for the creation of 150 family health teams across the province.

Southwestern Ontario is facing a serious doctor shortage. Our current doctors are struggling under enormous caseloads. A high percentage of the doctors in our

communities are over 55 years of age. The Chatham-Kent Health Alliance determined that one in three people leave our community for their health care. Residents without a family physician often turn

to hospitals as a primary source of care.

Family health teams will improve primary care and bring badly needed doctors and health care services to our communities. Minister, can you reassure this House

that our government is working to deliver on our campaign promise to bring family health teams to southwestern Ontario?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yes, I can. I am pleased to say to the honourable member that I had a chance,

as he well knows -- and the member from Essex too has been working very hard on projects.

We made a commitment to build 150 family health teams until the next election, and we will. The first 45 of those will be announced this year. Our government

has put $600 million behind an investment to enhance the quality of primary care, because we know in many communities, such as the ones identified by the honourable member, the sheer absence of

access to family practitioners is a very serious hardship.

Our model will bring health practitioners of a variety of sorts together so that there is a team environment working on behalf of the patients in that area.

This stands out as one of the most essential elements of our government's strategy to transform health care by driving it down to communities and making family doctors available again in

communities, after years and years of the absence of any commitment in that regard from two parties while in government.

Mr Hoy: Minister, Chatham-Kent Essex supports our government's initiative to improve health care and to bring more care to the community

level. Across my riding, family health teams are being designed for communities and by communities. Tilbury has been working diligently for the past nine years to bring a family health team to that

community. As well, Leamington has started work on its own proposal. Minister, can you please tell this House what we should expect in the coming months?

Hon Mr Smitherman: First and foremost, because so many communities in Ontario have asked to be considered for community health centres -- I'm

pleased to say that last week we had the chance to launch 10 new community health centre satellites, three of them in southwestern Ontario, one in northeast London, one in Sarnia and one in Windsor

-- we're going to make those communities that desire community health centres our first priority for expansion of family health teams. They've invested a considerable amount of community effort in

the work to prepare so far, and we're going to take advantage of that community effort and seek to make sure we have success in that area.

I know the honourable member has been advancing, on behalf of the communities of Tilbury, a Chatham-Kent Essex family health team working group, that there's a

proposal down there that has a lot of merit and a lot of community support as well. The assurance that I give this honourable member and others in the House who have communities similarly

interested is that we will be launching the first 45 of these family health teams this year. I would further say that our agreement with the Ontario Medical Association is designed to dramatically

align doctors in family practice behind the commitment to deliver more resources at the community level.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): My question today is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Rural

communities such as mine depend on double-hatter firefighters. Municipalities in my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock have been clear about the important role these volunteers play in protecting

community safety. The firefighters' union is acting in a self-serving manner by threatening these double-hatters. They are threatening the jobs of full-time firefighters who are simply trying to

give something back to their communities.

The people who understand the importance of protecting public safety are telling you that these volunteer firefighters are needed, that the small communities

don't have the resources to spend the approximately $450,000 a year it takes to have a full-time firefighter. Double-hatter firefighters are some of my community's most dedicated volunteers.

They're protecting their communities and bringing needed firefighting expertise to largely volunteer fire services. Minister, will you do the right thing and stand up today to support the right of

firefighters to volunteer however they wish?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): As I've said many times before, my primary concern is public

safety, and I want to make sure the people of Ontario have adequate fire coverage. Having said that, the issue is one that is being addressed and monitored by the fire marshal. We appreciate the

valuable role of volunteers; we support volunteers. But we think the way to handle this is through the collective bargaining process. The fire marshal is monitoring it. If he feels the safety of

the people of Ontario is at risk, he will make recommendations to deal with it.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): The member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock deserves credit for her steadfast support of volunteer

firefighters, and in turn for her understanding of this important community safety issue in rural and small-town Ontario.

On March 31 of this year, this minister made a commitment to this House that he would convene another round of mediation, and if that didn't work, he said -- I

quote him again -- "I'm going to bring forward legislation." I know this minister to be an honourable member. I know he understands --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm going to ask the member to quiet down a bit.

Mr Arnott: I know this minister understands how vital double-hatters are in the communities they serve -- communities they help make safe. I

know he's aware of the headline in last Saturday's Kitchener-Waterloo Record that states, "Fire Marshal Sides with Double-Hatters." I know he's aware that Greg Ankenmann, of the Perth East Fire

Department and captain of the Shakespeare station, has been forced to quit as a volunteer because of union threats. Captain Ankenmann has written to me saying that these forced resignations,

obtained under duress, are "going to jeopardize emergency response in our area and across Ontario," therefore putting public safety at risk.

When will the government listen to the fire marshal, volunteers themselves, the chiefs' association, AMO, 165 municipal councils, and even the Minister of

Community Safety and take action to protect --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mr Kwinter: In the past, I have commended the member for his efforts and for the diligence with which he has been pursuing this issue. The

only thing I have to say to him is that when he was on the government side, he brought forward his private member's bill. Not only did it not pass, but several members of his existing caucus did

not support it and most of them didn't even show up to vote. So for him to sit there and condemn me for not dealing with it when his own party would not support it -- I will be taking my direction

from the fire marshal. We will make sure that the safety of the citizens of Ontario is protected, and we think the collective bargaining process is the way to go.

POVERTY

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. Today, the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton released a

damning report on incomes and poverty in Hamilton. The stats are absolutely staggering. It shows that one fifth of all people in Hamilton are living below StatsCan's low-income cutoff. Some 80% of

single moms with children under the age of six are living in poverty.

Your government is responsible for the lack of affordable housing, affordable and accessible daycare, job training and other programs that could actually

address some of these conditions. You can fix this, but not with a simple little pilot project here or there or a totally inadequate increase in social assistance rates. I want to hear from you,

Premier, that you are making the city of Hamilton's survival a priority. How could things get so bad on your watch?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm very happy to address this. The

people of Hamilton really do deserve this government, which is there as a partner for them like no government before. Let me tell you that Mayor Di Ianni is very appreciative of the assistance that

this government has brought to bear on social service issues, for example: $19 million worth last year alone.

This government, whether it be through the increase in the minimum wage for the first time in 12 years -- for the first time in many years, there is new child

care money from the federal government going to child care -- a significant issue for families who do live at or near the poverty line; for the first time in 12 years, increasing social assistance

to the tune of $110 million across the province. And agencies that work daily with people who struggle with poverty all saw at least a 3% increase in their base budgets to assist them in helping

people who truly need help.

Ms Horwath: A $19-million one-time hit to a budget in a crisis during a by-election is not a sustainable solution to the problem of poverty in

my city. We need some serious investments and some comprehensive plans to deal with this crisis, not the tinkering that we've seen from your government.

Believe me, poverty has huge costs -- we all know this -- for everyone, not just those who are struggling to survive. Hungry children cannot learn. Hungry

people with no housing get sick, and they get sick more often. They have more encounters with police and with the judicial system. It's obvious that people cannot survive on the kinds of supports

that you are willing to provide. It's obvious that the economic and social effects of these kinds of crises in communities like mine are absolutely huge. When are you going to start taking this

seriously?

Hon Ms Pupatello: On behalf of this government, let me say to the people of Hamilton that we are very positive about the city of Hamilton. We

believe the city of Hamilton has a great, bright future. We will be there for the city of Hamilton as a partner, and we will especially be there for the people of Hamilton who need help, the people

who are at or below the poverty line. We are coming through with programs, like our minister for infrastructure, who just announced 140 more affordable housing units for Hamilton.

Let me say what we are doing in our ministry alone to help on homelessness issues, where we are talking about streamlining programs to save administrative

costs, where we're talking about agencies that have to work diligently and will finally see the provincial government as a real partner. But most of all, let's say to the people of Hamilton: We

believe in you, Hamiltonians.

GREENBELT

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question, the member from Stoney Creek.

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): Thank you, Mr Speaker -- a part of the great city of Hamilton.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The government's proposed greenbelt legislation is of particular concern to my riding of

Stoney Creek. Most agree on the principle of the legislation; from 10,000 feet up it's perfect, it's gorgeous. But at the grassroots there are issues in my riding and in other areas that we have to

sort out.

Some of the people I've talked to want to know whether or not there's any flexibility built into where those lines are going to go and what is still truly

tender fruit land. How are you going to deal with any adjustments that might have to be made to those draft lines, and is there some flexibility built into this?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the member from Stoney Creek for her

question.

First of all, let's get the facts straight. This government is doing what no other government has done before: We are protecting an additional one million

acres of environmentally sensitive land for future generations to come. The proposed greenbelt was based on science.

As the member knows, we're holding eight meetings around the province of Ontario, around the greenbelt area currently, in order to hear from people, what their

opinions are and whether or not adjustments should be made to this particular plan. We want to hear from the people, we are consulting on this plan and we're going to end up with something that we

can be proud of for the next 100 years to come.

Ms Mossop: In addition, the Niagara regional agricultural task force is recommending that the government undertake a number of things to help

farmers out through this transition period. What is the government's view of those recommendations and how likely is it that we are going to have them implemented?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I'd like to refer that to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I want to thank the member from Stoney Creek for the question. We appreciate the work

that the Niagara region undertook with their task force report. It's quite interesting, when you review the Niagara region task force report and look at the good work that was undertaken by Lyle

Vanclief and Bob Bedggood, that the agricultural advisory team's recommendations back to the provincial government virtually mirror the report that was put forth by the Niagara region. For anybody

who would like to see the work that Mr Vanclief and Mr Bedggood undertook, it is available on the OMAF Web site. Certainly if anybody would like a hard copy, we're prepared to send it to them.

We want to use the advice that the ag advisory team put forward to help strengthen agriculture in this province. We want to move forward with strong provincial

policy statement reviews to deal with the question of surplus dwellings in those areas. We want to deal with minimum distance separations. Right now, we have two classifications of minimum distance

separations. We're going to move forward and move that into one.

As well, we're going to work with the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation to enhance the Trespass to Property Act, as well as moving forward in

time with other of the recommendations --

The Speaker: Thank you.

PETITIONS

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition regarding the Leslie M. Frost Centre.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Leslie M. Frost Centre has been Ontario's leading natural resources education, training and conference centre aimed at fostering an understanding

of natural resource management, with a focus on ecosystems and their sustainability for future generations; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government refused to consult with municipalities and other user groups before taking this drastic action and continues to operate in a

clandestine manner; and

"Whereas this move will hurt the people and economies of Muskoka and Haliburton, especially those in the local tourism industry; and

"Whereas the Frost Centre is a valuable resource for elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions, as well as a variety of other groups;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty government reverse the decision to close the Leslie M. Frost Centre."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it and will give it to Danika Hawthorne, the page from South River, Ontario, in the riding of Parry

Sound-Muskoka.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding support for chiropractic

services in the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I send this to you by page Eric.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the last funding agreement between the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario Association of Optometrists (OAO) expired March 31, 2000;

and

"Whereas the optometric fees for OHIP-insured services remain unchanged since 1989; and

"Whereas the lack of any fee increase for 15 years has created a crisis situation for optometrists; and

"Whereas fees for OHIP services do not provide for fair or reasonable compensation for the professional services of optometrists, in that they no longer cover

the costs of providing eye examination; and

"Whereas it is in the best interest of patients and the government to have a new funding agreement for insured services that will ensure that the most

vulnerable members of society are able to receive the eye care that they need;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care resume negotiations immediately with the OAO and appoint a mediator to help with the negotiation process, in

order to ensure that optometrists can continue to provide quality eye care services to patients in Ontario."

I am in agreement with this and I will affix my signature.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that was sent to me by the United Steelworkers of America. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government is cutting provincial funding for essential health care services like optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic

care;

"Whereas this privatization of health care services will force Ontarians to pay out-of-pocket for essential health care;

"Whereas Ontarians already pay for health care through their taxes and will be forced to pay even more through the government's new regressive health tax;

"Whereas the Liberals promised during the election that they would not cut or privatize health care services in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand the McGuinty Liberal government keep its promises and guarantee adequate provincial funding for critical health services like eye, physiotherapy and

chiropractic care."

I agree with the petitioners. I have affixed my signature to this.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario regarding support for chiropractic services in the

Ontario health insurance plan.

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic" services "will no longer be able to access the health care

they need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned," therefore "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and

maintain OHIP coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province" of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I will present this to you through this wonderful page, Ellen.

PIT BULLS

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I've got a petition sent to me by the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club -- the mailing address is

in Grimsby, Ontario -- with almost 2,000 signatures.

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed, and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training, and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

In support, I affix my signature.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition sent to me by thousands of patients who are concerned about this government's cut to

chiropractic care. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care

they need;

"Whereas those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already

overburdened family physician offices and emergency departments;

"Whereas the elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200

million in other health care costs; and

"Whereas there was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I agree with the petitioners and sign this as well.

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I rise a second time, because I keep getting petitions regarding the Ministry of the Environment. It's addressed

to the Parliament of Ontario and the Minister of the Environment, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas we find lots of pop cans and beer bottles in our parks and children's playgrounds;

"Whereas it is, therefore, unsafe for our children to play in these parks and playgrounds;

"Whereas many of these bottles and cans are broken and mangled, therefore causing harm and danger to our children;

"Whereas Ontarians are dumping about a billion aluminum cans worth $27 million into landfill" sites "every year instead of recycling them;

"Whereas the undersigned want to see legislation passed to have deposits paid on cans and bottles, which would be returnable and therefore not found littering

our parks and streets;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge and demand that the Ontario government institute a collection program that will include all pop drinks, bottles

of beer, wine, Tetra Pak juices and can containers to be refundable in order to reduce littering and protect our environment."

Since I strongly agree, I certainly want to sign my name to this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of double-hatter firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has declared their intent to `phase out' these double-hatter firefighters; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being threatened by the union leadership and forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time

jobs, and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario; and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has introduced Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would uphold the right to

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the provincial government express public support for MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 52 and willingness to pass it into law or introduce similar legislation that

protects the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

It's signed by a number of my constituents in the Woolwich Township area, and, of course, as you'd expect, I've affixed my signature to it as well.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition sent to me by about 70 constituents from Sudbury and Nickel Belt. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently approved a request by the Sudbury Regional Hospital to expand the geographic area where hospital patients who need

long-term care can now be placed;

"Whereas this situation has occurred because there are no long-term-care beds available in the Sudbury region for these patients;

"Whereas patients now face discharge and placement in long-term facilities far from home, in ... Espanola and Manitoulin Island;

"Whereas the redevelopment project at Pioneer Manor has freed up space which could be converted into 30 temporary long-term-care beds;

"Whereas this provides a positive solution to our bed crisis;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand the McGuinty Liberal government fund these 30 temporary long-term-care beds so that no patient is sent far from home for long-term care."

I agree with the petitioners and have affixed my signature to this.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly regarding access to trades and professions

in Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada,

raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and

managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas Ontario, its businesses, its people and its institutions badly need the professional, managerial and technical skills that many newcomers to Canada

have and want to use;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the

government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada

gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry, or re-entry, of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

I am very pleased, Speaker, to sign this petition and I send it to you by page Aisha.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of double-hatter firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has declared their intent to `phase out' these double-hatter firefighters; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being threatened by the union leadership and forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time

jobs, and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario; and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott" -- my colleague -- "has introduced Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would

uphold the right to volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the provincial government express public support for MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 52 and willingness to pass it into law or introduce similar legislation that

protects the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition with, on this round, 150 signatures. I delivered the first 7,011 on April 5. It's sent to

me by Cynthia Boufford of London, whose autistic child, Jordan, was cut off from IBI treatment under this Liberal government.

It reads as follows:

"I support the resolution to ensure all people with autism receive appropriate services for their disability through the health care system.

"Autism is a medical condition and, as such, these citizens of Ontario should not be deprived of medically necessary treatment based on their age or the

severity of their autism.

"Waiting lists for intensive behavioural intervention providing less than the optimum number of hours of treatment, penalizing families for advocating and

discharging children just because they turn six are human rights violations and are, quite frankly, just morally wrong.

"Funding autism treatment through the health care system would ensure that service providers follow clearly established medical ethics and regulations.

"Discharges from the intensive behavioural program are occurring daily as children turn six years old. These children may regress, and then the money invested

in their therapy programs will have been wasted.

"Act now, because this is an emergency for these families and their children.

"Premier McGuinty, please take immediate action to ensure not one more child or adult with autism is deprived of medically necessary treatment which will

enable them to reach their full potential.

"As a citizen of Ontario, I will not allow this injustice to continue."

As I said, I now have 150 of the next 5,000 to come. I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 16, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 135,

An Act to establish a greenbelt area and to make

consequential amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 and the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 / Projet de loi

135, Loi établissant la zone de la ceinture de verdure et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la

Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement de l'escarpement du Niagara,

à la Loi de 2001 sur la conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges et à la Loi de 1994 sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Just by way of explanation, the last speakers were the members from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and

London-Fanshawe. The member for London-Fanshawe is here today, so we will have a round of questions and comments, beginning with the member for Erie-Lincoln.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the explanation. I was very curious during question period today about

the Minister of Municipal Affairs' response, where he seems to now be getting it, that there are problems with the greenbelt map.

Another curious answer the minister had was that he said it was based on science. Some of us wonder about what kind of science is underlying the greenbelt map

as it stands. We think maybe he meant political science. Members of the opposition are certainly going to look closely to see if these boundaries were based on good science -- physiographic

features, for example -- or if they were based on the political concerns of government members.

A recent article: "Erin Fighting Mad over Suddenly Being Placed in Green Belt: Puslinch Councillors Adopt a Wait-and-see Attitude for Now." Mayor Rod Finnie of

Erin said in this

article that he was hopping mad that they were not included in the initial greenbelt map, and that they woke up one day and found out that they now were included. His biggest

concern is that the town "was not informed from the start. If we had been, we would have spent" more "time on it."

A similar

article recently: "Greenbelt Delivers Blow to Georgina," causing a loss of jobs in the Georgina area. Last night in Pelham, at a town hall meeting

with a great crowd out -- Pelham wakes up one morning and finds that the greenbelt boundary had shifted considerably. You should have heard last night -- my staff member reported back the kind of

angst, the vitriol directed at Dalton McGuinty and his lack of support for farmers in the Niagara Peninsula and across the province of Ontario, and the surprise.

We're going to look very closely to find out exactly what science is behind the greenbelt mapping. We fear that it's more political science than anything

else.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I was here last night for the debate, and I'm just going to say again that there's much in this bill

that we support and, quite frankly, are going to vote for. But there are a number of issues that the government is failing to put on the table when it comes to the whole greenbelt issue.

For example, how are we going to deal with intercity travel? How are we going to deal with urban travel within the greenbelt area? It's one thing for the

government to say, "We're going to create a greenbelt in this area in order to be able to protect sensitive lands," but it's quite another thing if you don't put in place the policies and the

dollars necessary to develop the type of transportation policy that you need to protect the greenbelt.

You know the old saying when it comes to the construction of freeways and highways: build it, and they will come. The point I make here is that we have been

relying more and more on highways and superhighways in that area for a long time. If we want to protect the greenbelt area, we're going to have to seriously take a look at putting some dollars into

supporting public infrastructure such as rail, in order to be able to move people on what we now call the GO system and possibly expand it across the GTA and throughout the entire greenbelt, in

order to allow a lessening of the need for highways. The problem is, if you don't do something, we're just going to have to build more highways, and the more highways you build, the more pollution

goes up in the atmosphere and the more encroachment there is on greenbelt lands.

The other issue, and we talked about this very quickly yesterday, was the issue of what happens in agriculture. It's one thing for us to say as legislators

that we want to protect the greenbelt and we're going to protect those farms within the greenbelt. But if you really want to protect farms, give the farmers the kind of support they need. We know

the industry is very hard-pressed. Take a look at the BSE issue; take a look at everything coming at the same time. It's almost like the perfect storm when it comes to the agricultural

industry.

The governments, both provincial and federal, have to do more in order to be able to support the agricultural industry, to help them deal with the difficulties

that they're going through. The greenbelt in itself is not going to protect the family farm. It's going to take far more than that to actually do the protection.

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): The proposed greenbelt plan is intended to strike a balance between environmentally sensitive

lands, agriculture and the need for growth. I just heard about the issue of scientific analysis. The greenbelt is a plan that takes in technical analysis and scientific analysis. What we're trying

to do is identify the areas that are best suited for the purposes we intend. As I said, there are three particular areas we're trying to deal with in this. We're talking about natural areas,

agricultural systems and settlement areas. All those have to be taken into account.

You mentioned earlier that the minister was talking about the boundaries. We're in the process right now of doing consultations. As he said, we've done eight

of them. At this point, if boundaries were frozen, then really, what would be the point of doing consultations? That is exactly why we're doing this. We want to hear from people as to how they feel

about the boundaries we've put in place, the kinds of plans that the greenbelt is going to be. Last night there were 400 people who showed up in Burlington to talk about this very issue. We want to

take all that into consideration. It's not a matter of it already being set in stone. This is what the consultation process is all about, and that's what we're trying to do.

You talked about farmers. Certainly I'm concerned about farmers. But the issue of viability is not just an issue of viability within the greenbelt; it's an

issue throughout the entire province. We have issues across all of Ontario.

We talked about the whole issue of viability and land use. I just read a report from the region of Niagara in which they asked about the impact of the

greenbelt on the Niagara region. Agri Choice, which is a real estate firm, came forward and said there would be no impact on the land values for farmers. So we know at this point that that, at

least, is solid.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon and make a few comments on the comments that were made last night when

we finished debate. I'd like to go back a little bit to my colleague for Erie-Lincoln, who is our lead on this bill and who has done a tremendous amount of work dealing with the stakeholders and

showing leadership. Obviously, from the government side all we've seen is a fancy announcement with some fancy lines drawn around what may now be political areas, if I'm gathering what my colleague

for Erie-Lincoln is telling me.

I'd like to reflect on the comments he made about his concerns for the agricultural community and tie it into his friend from Owen Sound, Mr Murdoch, who gave

a passionate speech last night on his interest in the agricultural community and how they've been let down by this government over and over again. Today I heard the Minister of Agriculture

referring to a question in Stoney Creek. There are so many questions the Minister of Agriculture could be listening to. I can go over and over these questions. Basically, what we're hearing from

agriculture stakeholders is that we don't have a Minister of Agriculture. Everyone's turning on him. He's not making a lot of people very happy.

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): That's not true, Garfield, and you know it .

Mr Dunlop: I can hear some heckling going on already. I deal with a lot of agriculture stakeholders and I haven't heard anyone speak friendly

about this guy. Look forward to a cabinet shuffle, because this bird's on his way out.

We're serious. This is a very serious concern. We, in the opposition party, are concerned about the agriculture community. It makes up the bulk of rural

Ontario. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars, and we don't have any support from this government on it. They're just laughing in the face of the agriculture stakeholders. That's a

disgrace, and so is this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for London-Fanshawe has two minutes to reply.

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'd like to thank all the members who spoke, from Erie-Lincoln, Timmins-James Bay, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex

and Simcoe North.

First, in question period we listened to a question to the minister who is in charge of this portfolio. He answered and spoke clearly about open consultation,

asking the people, holding meetings across the province, across certain areas, who are going to be affected by the greenbelt, and also listening to their concerns. Of course, it's going to take

quite a bit of time, but all the members of this House agreed that this greenbelt initiative is something that has never happened before. I believe all members of this House are going to vote in

support, I hope, because I believe it's a good thing for Ontario.

Also, I was listening to the concern of the member for Timmins-James Bay, who was talking about investment in transportation. I want to just remind him -- I

was looking at my paper here -- of some good things about transportation. Our government invested $90 million to assist the TTC, in addition to the $1-billion initiative from the federal

government. This initiative is very good, I believe. Also, we're investing to improve public transit. We have committed $600 million to Ottawa for rapid transit expansion programs. So I believe

it's working, as a government, to ensure good public transit efficiency in this province in order to support all the people who commute. Then we don't have to eat the farmland and we have to

support the farmers. This is what it's all about, to my colleague from Timmins-James Bay.

Also, I believe the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex phrased the whole thing very well when she said that our government initiative is not just to protect

certain areas for farmland but for all farmers across the province. I would applaud the Minister of Agriculture, who's working hard on behalf of all the farmers in this province to make sure that

their voice is being heard, not just in this place but everywhere in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): As we debate Bill 135 and deliberate on the science of greenbelt approaches, or, as the member for

Erie-Lincoln has just put it in the box, of the political science of greenbelt issues, I'd like to review some issues that are of interest to landowners and farmers in my riding in

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. We are not part of the greenbelt area. However, the northern part of our riding will be, and is now, receiving the migration of leap frogs who will jump out of this green

line on the map of Ontario to find more affordable housing to the south. I'm thinking mainly of the Caledonia area, south of Hamilton.

Over the past number of months this government has picked up on a direction, an initiative, of both the Harris and Eves teams, where we left off in addressing

a growing problem across so much of southern Ontario, not just the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe, a trend we've seen for decades and decades: the threatened gobbling up of massive tracts of

farmland, while at the same time much of our cities and city cores go to seed. While the PC government brought in Ontario's first-ever brownfield legislation to encourage redevelopment of aging

buildings and to bolster reinvestment in our city cores, more must be done to ensure that growth that continues to push into rural Ontario is held in check.

I think of the Smart Growth initiative of the former PC government, and to give credit as well to this particular bill, Bill 135, the Greenbelt Act, 2004 --

not to be confused with Bill 27, the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2003. The Smart Growth initiative, coupled in part with the brownfield legislation brought in by the previous government and this

proposal, have considerable merit to battle urban sprawl. As urban areas continue to reach into so much of rural Ontario, instant communities continue to spring up on not only vital farmland but

forested areas, on marshland, on so much of Ontario that is still viable with respect to wildlife habitats, for example. Regrettably, vast sections are being paved over, are being contaminated to

allow for, again, the larger commutes encouraged by this expanded sprawl. What's worrisome is that millions of new people are projected to arrive in the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe area over the

next few decades.

As I've mentioned, the Greenbelt Act is one way this government is attempting to tackle the spreading problem. The legislation did create a greenbelt study

area -- Oak Ridges; Niagara, including the tender fruit lands -- and established a moratorium temporarily, and I stress that, preventing new urban usage. The goals of the greenbelt legislation seem

laudable; however, as we've been hearing in the hours of debate, there are growing concerns that while preventing sprawl into rural areas, this legislation freezes farmers out of the planning

decisions on their own land. And that goes for other private landowners in the catchment area.

Farmers are already in a situation where they see their present-day opportunities being threatened on the economic front, whether it's the ever-increasing cost

of energy, obviously the BSE crisis with our cattlemen, uncertain weather that leads to poor growing conditions, and, as someone who derives part of my income from soybeans -- soybeans today are

half the price they were last spring; grain corn is now half the price that it was last spring. And now, this government in effect is offering a proposal to our farmers to freeze their assets

without compensation. What kind of an opportunity is that for farm families in Ontario?

The issue in many quarters of the agricultural community is the perception of a lack of adequate government support and, worse yet, the perception with many

that the direction of this legislation is raising the spectre of government intrusion on their land.

If the government decides to tie the hands of farmers through this legislation, surely there must be compensation. For that reason, I join with the OFA, the

Ontario Federation of Agriculture, requesting compensation for any loss of farmers' equity and demanding a clear statement from this government that the long-term viability of farm operations is

assured -- we know there's no guarantee, certainly, in the business of farming, but that there's an assurance -- that future generations would be left with the confidence to continue to stick with

it.

It's in this context that I wish to highlight a program. We were discussing this just now. It's an ambitious program. It's a farmer-driven program. It's a

conservation program. There's a pilot project being launched in Norfolk county in my riding. The pilot project is essentially to test the waters with respect to a program. The short term is ALUS,

which stands for alternate land use services. It's a program that has been jump-started really by our local Norfolk Federation of Agriculture and also our Norfolk Land Stewardship Council and that

not only protects but enhances natural areas and further encourages an environmental partnership between farmers and people in town. It's a partnership that includes all stakeholders: government,

of course, is key; landowners, as I mentioned -- in this case, farmers; and it is a partnership fully tied in with conservationists.

In contrast, while in this greenbelt legislation, from what I see, the primary focus is to freeze development, the ALUS program goes many steps further with

respect to encouraging the planting of trees, for example. I'm not sure if this legislation will result in any trees being planted. The ALUS program is designed to enhance wildlife habitat, to

encourage a farmer -- and I've done it myself. When you have a dry spring, you're working up ground, some cattails have come up in one corner of the field, which is a natural occurrence.

Invariably, you make that decision and you disc them under. That gives you an extra bit of area to put in beans or corn. I will admit that, myself and our family, over the years, as we transferred

from livestock to cash crop, took out an awful lot of fencerows on many, many acres. You take out a fencerow, you get another eight or 16 rows of corn.

Coupled with that, and with respect to our land, over the years we've also had the opportunity to put probably 150 acres back into trees as well to try and

compensate for our approach to using the land that we have been blessed to own for a number of years. Again, not only protecting what we already have but enhancing what could be very simply boils

down to planting trees, setting aside land, allowing those cattails to come up, setting aside land for grassland. There's tremendous potential for a continued expansion of prairie grass habitat on

the Norfolk sand plain to the south of here. Again, how can this be done? All of this lies on the principle of the public paying for environmental benefits that they, as society at large, would

derive from private farmland. So we have a present government considering the Greenbelt Act as a remedy for urban sprawl.

I wish to introduce into the mix -- and I have mentioned this ALUS program before, this ambitious, farmer-driven program. It came out of Manitoba originally.

It's something to consider as some of these ideas take shape, not only in this designated greenbelt area but elsewhere in Ontario, elsewhere in Canada. Again, instead of simply freezing development

without compensation, as the Greenbelt Act proposes, the ALUS program encourages the planting of trees, setting aside prairie grassland, marshland, wildlife habitat -- all of those good things --

all the while with public money paying for the environmental benefits that society at large would accrue.

Good stewardship of the environment is not only a personal responsibility. Again, this is one of the principles behind the ALUS program. It's not only a

personal responsibility, it is a public value. Don't put all of this on the shoulders of the private landowner or the farmer. It's a value -- this is how it would work -- based on payments to

farmers for rendering ecological services that provide environmental benefit to society. Again, some options: property tax credits or conservation agreements. There have been some precedents in the

past.

By paying for ecological services, a market develops. A market is created for public resources -- in this case, land. We've seen there's a market, certainly,

that can be developed -- and has been developed for air emission trading, for example -- a market for society in the province of Ontario to continue to develop and to go beyond continually

destroying wildlife habitat, for example.

At present, no markets exist, obviously, for public resources on private lands. Farmers are essentially forced to maximize production, as I indicated. When

push comes to shove, you do take out that fencerow, if you're a cash-cropper. You do work up that marshland. If it's dry enough, it gives you, again, that additional acreage to grow your crop.

Again, farmers are forced to maximize production -- albeit, on occasion, through government-subsidized initiatives -- from private resources, not only corn and soybeans -- I'm perhaps suggesting my

bias with what we're into now -- but other crops and livestock.

The ALUS concept, as I mentioned, came out of Manitoba, the Keystone Agricultural Producers -- I understand that would essentially be the counterpart of our

Ontario Federation of Agriculture -- in partnership with a group, the Delta Waterfowl Foundation -- I think the core group would be duck hunters.

These kinds of farmer-friendly conservation programs and the pilot project that is being launched in Norfolk county are being considered not only in Manitoba

but also here in Ontario, as I mentioned. I know one of the forums on this farmer conservation program was attended by the Minister of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island. Both Saskatchewan and

Alberta expressed interest as well.

Again, the pilot project is getting a lot of local support: 39 different organizations have put their logo on the proposal, 50 are now participating in the

development, and 10 organizations have shelled out well over $39,000 for a benchmark survey.

The MNR -- I'm happy to see this -- is continuing to fund the pilot project at a level of about $20,000 a year. This was something initiated in 2003 by the

previous government.

Also through the Canada-Ontario agreement, a further $35,000 has been committed over the next three years for what is essentially a habitat restoration

project, something that will result in trees actually being planted, prairie grass actually being planted where needed and marshland actually being developed. In other words, we would have the real

evidence of a greenbelt. It's a very proactive, ambitious and action-oriented program, in contrast to some of the more passive aspects of this greenbelt concept, which relies on freezing assets

and, I assume, just hoping the trees come up on their own without anybody putting a seedling in the ground.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this in the Legislature. I do wish to continue to focus on some of the advantages of this program. I think what's

most important, and I hear this in many of these greenbelt legislation meetings that are being held, is that farmers have the feeling they are being presented with a fait accompli. They're being

told what to do. They seem to be -- including the OFA, in part -- in a reactive mode. This program repositions the farmer's role with respect to the environment from reactive to proactive. It gives

the farmer more control with respect to the ever-growing environmental agenda.

ALUS is seen as reducing government reliance and public reliance on regulations and legislation such as this, as well as converting environmental risk into a

business opportunity for farmers. Developing a predictable revenue stream for our farmers, again, has a direct benefit for not only rural communities but urban communities that have developed in

our rural areas.

I call on this government to look beyond the GTA, to look beyond the Golden Horseshoe, as the previous government has done with Ontario's Living Legacy, with

the development of the Bruce Trail, going way back, the Niagara Escarpment concept -- to go beyond. Take a look at a very interesting proposal, the NOAH project, which takes us beyond the GTA and

beyond the Golden Horseshoe to the newly created Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, and swings around to the east and south to the Adirondacks.

Just to wrap up, we ask this government to think beyond this designated green swatch on the map and to take a serious look at some of the perhaps unanticipated

consequences. I think of leapfrogging, which is inherent in this kind of development freezing. Take a look at a much broader, province-wide conservation program, and at a much broader,

province-wide compensation program that will not only continue to protect but will enhance Ontario's natural areas, and will ensure we leave a legacy for our grandchildren and the next seven

generations after that.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my pleasure to rise and make some comments on the debate by the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. I

think the member gave some really specific and clear examples of where the legislation is going to do some positive things, as well as of where he thinks there needs to be some improvement. I

similarly have comments that will be in the same vein.

As you've heard already through this debate thus far, it has been very clear that many members of this Legislature are supportive, overall, of the direction

Bill 135 takes. However, depending on one's own experiences and one's own perspectives, there are some things that many people believe can be added and/or adjusted to increase the value of this

legislation.

A little later on this evening I will be discussing some of those issues particular to the city of Hamilton, from where I hail. Like so many other wonderful

communities in this province, the city of Hamilton has wonderful, natural areas that are right on its doorstep, like the Bruce Trail, the Niagara Escarpment and so many other wonderful assets that

really need to be protected over time.

With this legislation, we can start moving in that general direction. There are still some major concerns around some areas of the tender fruit belt,

particularly, and some concerns about increased quarrying, aggregate extraction, that might be happening in our community in particular, as well as a really needed look at what's happening in the

farming industry overall and how we not only outline where farmlands will be, but how we continue to make them productive over time for our farmers and communities.

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 135. I have to say that of all the issues I've dealt with in my

18 years on local council in the town of Oakville and the region of Halton, no issue has touched the nerve of the community the way planning issues have. In the past decade, the issue of green

space preservation has become one that is first and foremost in the minds of people in my community.

I had the privilege of chairing a meeting on the greenbelt in Oakville last week. It was very well attended. I don't know the exact number, but I think there

were close to 400 people there. It was important that I was able to not only chair a meeting on green space preservation and the greenbelt strategy, but previous to that we had been able to make a

tremendous announcement in my community on a $1-billion investment by Ford of Canada.

So I think we're trying to prove to people that these two issues are not mutually exclusive, that you can have economic growth and population growth, and that

you can do it in an environmentally responsible way. That's what I think is at the heart of the greenbelt issue.

We know that four million more people are going to move to the greater Toronto area within the next period of time. There's no secret to that. It's a wonderful

place to live. People are attracted to this community. People are attracted to this area from around the world and around the country.

What I heard the other night was that environmentalists simply love the greenbelt strategy. It's something they want to see pass. Ordinary people love this

strategy. I get stopped on the streets now and I get complimented for this strategy that we're proposing be adopted by the government.

There are some agricultural concerns that need to be addressed. Those seem to me to be issues of farm viability, and we need to address them as a government in

some way. But what most people are saying to me is that finally we have a Premier who is able to treat the issue of green space preservation and a greenbelt strategy with the importance and the

priority it deserves in an economic area such